Going to this page and looking for references to molten metals I find Mark quoting a NY Times piece that implies that fires are still burning three months after the twin towers were destroyed.

"The Fire Department is also adjusting its operations at the site. Some underground smoldering continues at isolated spots, particularly below where the north tower once stood, but almost all the fires are now extinguished and active firefighting has all but come to a halt."

Another quote:

Red Hot Debris. The removal of debris from the collapsed areas requires the safe lifting and maneuvering of very heavy steel beams, often twisted and tangled from the force of the collapse. Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F.

"As in a stubborn coal mine fire, the combustion taking place deep below the surface is in many places not a fire at all. Instead, oxygen is charring the surfaces of buried fuels in a slow burn more akin to what is seen in the glowing coals of a raked-over campfire. But the scale of the trade center burning is vast, with thousands of plastic computers, acres of flammable carpet, tons of office furniture and steel and reservoirs of hydraulic oil and other fuels piled upon one another.

Here Mark is implying that that slow underground burns of plastic, carpet, furniture, hydraulic oil and other fuels can heat steel beams to red hot for more than seven weeks. Is this implication even remotely credible?

To be fair he doesn't attempt to downplay the amount of heat present at the site:

The fires burned for three months after the attacks, and temperatures recorded from planes flying overhead reached as high as 2,000 degrees.

Bobby Gray: "A 30-foot column carried high above the ground would be cherry red. It wasn't in a molten stage, but it was certainly too hot to put on a truck because the truck beds are all wood.

But here's the link from his page which definitively falsifies his opening assertion that the truth movement did not get a single significant claim correct:

Going to this page, we read:

The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel

In 2004 a French film maker, Etienne Sauret, produced a documentary titled The First 24 Hours, in which rescue workers recount, among other things, 'rivers of molten steel' under the rubble of the collapse WTC towers. Official reports, such as this one, from the American Society of Safety Engineers, tell a similar story...

Here are quotes from the page which support the proposition that molten steel was present in the debris pile, rather than refute or debunk it.

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

So what was the source of the energy which melted steel and generated large quantities of ultrafine dust from the twin twin towers? The three demolition theories are nanothermite (Steven Jones), nuclear explosives (Gordon Duff, Dimitri Khalezov, Jeff Prager), and exotic weapons (Judy Wood). Of course any combination of these three could apply.

Occam's Razor says that the theory which explains the evidence by making the least number of of assumptions has the greatest likelihood of being true. Of the three theories mentioned previously nuclear weapons satisfy the question of historical use without making any assumptions.

As well as the publicly acknowledged use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki there is the covert use of low yield nuclear weapons for the 2002 Bali Bombing (Joe Vialls) and the 2015 Tianjin explosion (Ian Greenhalgh).

Bali

Vialls described how the explosion completely stripped concrete from reinforcing bar over 50 feet away as well as vaporising people and causing severe flash burns. Chemical explosives like RDX do not have this energy signature.

“Then the power cut... all the power went out. I didn’t think bomb, I didn’t think anything at that stage.... And then, probably, I’d say two seconds later... not even two seconds later, there was just the huge flash, and I was just covered in glass, put on the ground, and it just started ... it was like hell on earth.... “I’ve done demolitions courses with the Army and it was bigger than anything I’ve ever blown up in my time, and I’ve done a bit.” ~ Rodney Cox

Tianjin

On August 11, China devalued its currency, and in the subsequent 3 days the onshore Yuan, the CNY, tumbled by some 4% against the dollar. ZeroHedge

Hours after the devaluation there are massive explosions at Tianjn:

Reportedly 800 tonnes of ammonium nitrate exploded in the second blast. The US Army rates the relative effectiveness factor of ammonium nitrate, compared to TNT, as 0.42 , i.e the ammonium nitrate would have been equivalent to 336 tonnes of TNT.

However the estimated earthquake moment magnitude is 0.5% of the equivalent TNT tonnage in a nuclear explosion. So for the second explosion 2.9 suggests nearly 600 tons of TNT (this is a conservative value). Reddit

Yet according to the BBC:

The China Earthquake Networks Centre said the initial explosion ... had a power equivalent to three tonnes of TNT detonating, while the second was the equivalent of 21 tonnes.

So why did the Chinese under-report the energy of the explosion?

You can see a light purple glow which is a characteristic of a nuclear explosion in this video:

The combination of the cameras plastic lens and the photoelectric effect produced in the cameras CCD pick up chip (because it is basically a very large array of photo diodes) allows them to act as very good detectors of high level ionizing radiation.

“Lightning effect and duration of the fire ball being suspended in mid air and the very large mushroom cloud is the main give away, that is because it is being hit by neutrons from the nuclear fireball blast. It overloads the ccd’s electronic circuit producing white flashes. If the radiation is too high it will burn out the chip.” ~ Jeff Smith, former IAEA inspector

The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.

The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows.

In this video Luke Rudkowski covers a very personal and private story of the largest chemical attack on the american people that will also affect him. Over a half a million will be affected by this in the near future, while hundreds have already died and thousands are still suffering as we speak. There has been no accountability for this chemical attack just a massive cover up and censorship of this story, share this video with your friends and family so the truth can finally come out. If you believe in us go to http://wearechange.org/donate/ and invest in us so we can continue our operation and be totally free and independent news source for you.